[Peace-discuss] Gandhi, Bush, and the Bomb

[Paul Patton]

*Published on Monday, February 27, 2006 by CommonDreams.org *
  * Gandhi, Bush, and the Bomb *
  *by Lawrence S. Wittner*


On February 24, at a press briefing, White House National Security Advisor
Stephen Hadley announced that, when U.S. President George W. Bush travels to
India next week, he will lay a wreath in honor of Mohandas Gandhi.

For those familiar with the cynical gestures of government officials, it
might come as no surprise that an American President would attempt to derive
whatever public relations benefits he can by linking himself to one of the
most revered figures in Indian and world history.

But the level of hypocrisy is heightened when one recalls that Bush is
currently one of the world's leading warmakers and that Gandhi was one of
the world's leading advocates of nonviolence. Furthermore, the American
President's major purpose for traveling to India is to clinch a deal that
will provide that nation with additional nuclear technology, thus enabling
it to accelerate its development of nuclear weapons.

Gandhi, it should be noted, was not only a keen supporter of substituting
nonviolent resistance for war, but a sharp critic of the Bomb. In 1946, he
remarked: "I regard the employment of the atom bomb for the wholesale
destruction of men, women, and children as the most diabolical use of
science." When he first learned of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Gandhi
recalled, he said to himself: "Unless now the world adopts non-violence, it
will spell certain suicide." In 1947, Gandhi argued that "he who invented
the atom bomb has committed the gravest sin in the world of science,"
concluding once more: "The only weapon that can save the world is
non-violence." The Bomb, he said, "will not be destroyed by counter-bombs."
Indeed, "hatred can be overcome only by love."

That is certainly an interesting backdrop against which to place President
Bush's plan to provide India with nuclear technology. India is one of only
four countries that have refused to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT)-a treaty endorsed by 188 nations. Thumbing its nose at the
world, India has conducted nuclear tests and has developed what experts
believe to be 50 to 100 nuclear weapons. Under the terms of the NPT, the
export of nuclear technology is banned to nations that don't accept
international inspections of their nuclear programs. In addition, U.S. law
prohibits the transfer of nuclear technology to a country that rejects full
international safeguards. U.S. law also bans such technology transfer to a
non-NPT country that has conducted nuclear test explosions.

Thus, if the President were to give any weight to Gandhi's ideas,
international treaty obligations, or U.S. law, he would not be working to
provide India with the same nuclear-capable technology that he so vigorously
condemns in Iran-a country, by the way, that has signed the NPT, has
undergone inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and has not
conducted any nuclear weapons tests. There are other reasons to oppose this
deal, as well. Although India's relations with Pakistan are relatively
stable at the moment, they might well be very adversely affected by any
perception that the Indian government was racing ahead with a buildup of its
nuclear arsenal. Furthermore, Pakistan might demand the same nuclear
assistance as India. Indeed, if India can simply ignore the NPT and, then,
receive nuclear technology from the United States, why should other
countries observe its provisions? The Iranians, certainly, will make this
point.

At home, the Bush administration's double standard has not gone unnoticed.
In Congress, Representatives Ed Markey (D-MA) and Fred Upton (R-MI) have
introduced a bipartisan resolution-H.Con.Res. 318--expressing strong concern
about the proposed U.S.-India nuclear deal. Although this resolution affirms
humanitarian and scientific support for India, it contends that full civil
nuclear cooperation between the two nations poses serious dangers. For
example, it points to the possibility that the supply of nuclear fuel to
India could free up India's existing fissile material production, thereby
enabling it to be used to expand India's nuclear weapons arsenal. The
resolution also opposes transfer of nuclear technology to any country that
is not a party to the NPT and has not accepted full safeguards.

Whatever happens to this resolution, if the Bush administration were to
implement its nuclear agreement with the Indian government, it would have to
convince Congress to amend U.S. law. And arms control and disarmament groups
are determined to prevent that from happening.

Thus, the Bush administration might genuflect to Gandhi in its efforts to
arrange a nuclear pact with India, but it is going to have to convince a lot
of very skeptical observers before it implements this agreement.

*Dr. Lawrence Wittner is Professor of History at the State University of New
York, Albany. His latest book is Toward Nuclear Abolition: A History of the
World Nuclear Disarmament Movement, 1971 to the
Present<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0804748624/commondreams-20/ref=nosim>(Stanford
University Press). He also serves on the Board of Directors of
Peace Action, the country's largest peace and disarmament organization with
over 90,000 members. www.peace-action.org.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20060227/33ee81bb/attachment.html